3 ms·

whooptie doo, you're special and those who disagree with you are normies. that doesn't make a good argument, neither does misrepresenting what I said. and all y

whooptie doo, you're special and those who disagree with you are normies. that doesn't make a good argument, neither does misrepresenting what I said. and all your speculation about me there is wrong (your argument shouldn't be about me but about the topic anyways?). I'm sure US troops will be plenty terrified, and there will be lots of casualties, you just made that argument on my behalf so you could have something to win. The amount of fear or the level of sheer human carnage on either side does not affect the outcome. Like I said in my post, if these factors affect political will in the US, Iran will win, if not then US military will not take very long, despite the costs, to achieve victory. It will not be defeated on grounds of "drones", terrain, Iran being well prepared, or oil prices.

paganel 6mo ago
You have to be a normie to believe that a ground operation as currently envisaged by the US political leaders would be anything else but a suicide mission. This is not about “winning arguments on the internet” or some such, because in the end these arguments do not matter, it’s a basic matter of not sending men to die in a suicide mission. Unless this being a suicide mission isn’t the stated goal of the current US political leaders, but that’s another discussion.
- notepad0x90 6mo ago
  you have a broad definition of what a suicide mission is. Are you saying only US soldiers will die? Was Normandy a suicide mission? Does the US not have superior air-power, even though Iranians have more soldiers and home field advantage? I never claimed it won't be carnage or that casualties would be low. And btw, "normie" is not the insult you think it is, it only serves your ego. We can talk about the strategic goals, but strategy isn't what makes a mission "sucidie", it's when the only outcome of the mission is everyone involved will die that you call it a suicide mission. If there is a reasonable chance that a significant number of troops won't die, it isn't "suicide".

paganel 6mo ago

You have to be a normie to believe that a ground operation as currently envisaged by the US political leaders would be anything else but a suicide mission. This is not about “winning arguments on the internet” or some such, because in the end these arguments do not matter, it’s a basic matter of not sending men to die in a suicide mission. Unless this being a suicide mission isn’t the stated goal of the current US political leaders, but that’s another discussion.

notepad0x90 6mo ago
you have a broad definition of what a suicide mission is. Are you saying only US soldiers will die? Was Normandy a suicide mission? Does the US not have superior air-power, even though Iranians have more soldiers and home field advantage? I never claimed it won't be carnage or that casualties would be low. And btw, "normie" is not the insult you think it is, it only serves your ego. We can talk about the strategic goals, but strategy isn't what makes a mission "sucidie", it's when the only outcome of the mission is everyone involved will die that you call it a suicide mission. If there is a reasonable chance that a significant number of troops won't die, it isn't "suicide".